Tardigrades of North America: Additions to Montana’s Biodiversity Including a New Species, Platicrista loloensis nov. sp. (Parachela, Hypsibioidea, Itaquasconinae)^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your manuscript can potentially contribute to the knowledge of the limno-terrestrial Tardigrade fauna of Montana. However, it is currently in a state where it is necessary to revise it to a large extent to correspond to a standard written taxonomic study.

First of all, I must state that the differential diagnosis of both potentially new species is problematic:

The differential diagnosis of Platicrista loloensis is not very convincing (Table 4). In addition to the fact that you did not compare the new species with two other species of the genus Platicrista, there are several errors in the table that I marked in the manuscript. On the basis of a smooth cuticle, the new species is similar to P. borneensis, P. ramsayi, P. angustata, P. horribilis and P. aluna. Because P. loloensis sp. nov. does not have a constant PTL/BT ratio, I consider this ratio useless for distinguishing a new species from others. Other quantitative characters ptSSA and PTL/BT (by the way, this character correlates with the above comparison of PTL and BT) on the basis of average values cannot serve to distinguish species. It is definitely necessary to replace averages with ranges of values (min-max). And then it will be seen whether they will make it possible to distinguish the new species from the others. I consider lunules (No/Ser/Smo) to be a good distinguishing character. The new species with serrated lunules is similar only to P. angustata and P. horribilis from the listed species with a smooth cuticle. It differs from both only by the presence of median bars in legs IV. That's why I consider the species P. loloensis to be a very likely new species, but the revised Table 4 will show whether there will be other supporting character(s) for this statement.

I consider the differential diagnosis of Milnesium elseri to be very unconvincing (Table 6). In Table 6, you also included M. alpigenum and M. fridae, which do not have a smooth cuticle but have pseudopores (visible only with high quality PCM). Comparison of species on the basis of average values of quantitative characters does not enable reliable differentiation of species. Therefore, I consider it necessary to replace the average values with value ranges (min-max) in Table 6. It is also appropriate to omit the Claws and Cuticle columns, since they are the same characters in all compared species. We can consider only those for which the ranges of the compared species do not even partially overlap as good distinguishing characters. I checked the overlap of characters considered by the authors as distinguishing in Table 6 with all species with six peribuccal lamellae, CC [3-3][3-3] and smooth cuticle and found that the new species overlaps in all these characters at least partly with four species: M. tardigradum [according to Morek et al. (2018) Milnesium tardigradum Doyère, 1840: The first integrative study of interpopulation variability in a tardigrade species. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research], M. quiranae, M. longiungue, M. asiaticum. It means that we cannot distinguish the new species from these species based on the characters presented by the authors. I definitely recommend observation individuals of the potentialy new species with high quality PCM so that you can unequivocally exclude that the species has any cuticular structures (if yes it is necessary to document them well photographically) - you need to check the smallest and largest individuals because it is known that in some Milnesium juveniles differ from adults. In that case, you would compare it with species having sculptured dorsal cuticle. Otherwise, if you fail to find other characters to reliably distinguish the species from the four mentioned species, we cannot consider this species as a validly new species.

In the manuscript, it is necessary to take into account the current nomenclature and the current taxonomic position of individual taxa. It is recorded in the 42nd edition of the Checklist, and in addition, other relevant articles were published in 2023 - Tumanov & Tsvetkova (2023) elevated subfamilies Itaquasconinae and Pilatobiinae to family level and Gąsiorek et al. (2023) both transferred Pilatobius nodulosus and P. oculatus to the genus Degmion as well as described and redescribed several Platicrista species.

There are plenty of distorted taxon names in the manuscript. I marked them, but I consider it appropriate that you check the manuscript once more.

In the citations in the list of references, you do not take into account the rules established in the journal Diversity:

- several authors must be separated by a semicolon and not a comma, and this also applies to the last author

- the year should be in bold font

- the name of the journal should be abbreviated and written in italics

- volume should be written in italics

- the range of pages should be separated from the volume by a coma and not a colon or even a semicolon

- pages in the range of pages should be separated by n-dash instead of hyphen

- every citation should end with a period.

Since you did not have eggs available from the population you identified as Macrobiotus hufelandi, Mesobiotus harmsworthi, Paramacrobiotus areolatus, Paramacrobiotus richtersi, and Ramazzottius oberhaeuseri, you cannot claim to have found these species in Montana. It is therefore necessary to designate them throughout the manuscript as Macrobiotus hufelandi C.A.S. Schultze, 1834 sensu lato, Mesobiotus harmsworthi (Murray, 1907) sensu lato, Paramacrobiotus areolatus (Murray, 1907) sensu lato, Paramacrobiotus richtersi (Murray, 1911) sensu lato and Ramazzottius oberhaeuseri (Doyère, 1840) sensu lato (see also Kaczmarek et al. et al. 2016). Considering that Diphascon pingue together with other species forms a group of very similar species and their identification must be done very carefully using the relevant literature, which you do not mention in the manuscript, it is necessary to name this taxon in the manuscript as Diphascon pingue (Marcus, 1936) sensu lato.

In Tables 1 and 2, you list the unknown species of Isohypsibius from current research or also from Miller & Miller (2021). I assume that it is a different species from Isohypsibius prosostomus. I suggest that you try to assign it to one of the current genera from those that were recently separated from the Isohypsibius genus and can be easily distinguished (Dianea, Ursulinius).

Inconsistency of links to images and their content. For example, on lines 134-135, you wrote "No cuticular bars at the base of claws on leg I, internal cuticular bar next to base of interior claws of legs II and III (Figure 2Bb, 2Cb)". But in Figure 2B (claw I) is the internal bar visible and moreover it is not marked with the letter "b" but "c" and similarly also in Figure. 2C (leg II). Arrow is not mentioned in the legend to Fig. 2B although it is on the picture. It is necessary to thoroughly check the links to the images, their legends and the content of the images and achieve their consistency.

Names of genera, species and species groups should be italicized, but other names should not. Therefore, I consider it an error when the names of supraspecific taxa in Table 1 are written in italics.

I wrote other notes and suggestions in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the  PDF

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Journal: Diversity

Title: Tardigrades of North America: Additions to Montana’s Biodiversity including Two New Species, Platicrista loloensis nov. sp. (Parachela, Hypsibiidae, Itaquasconinae) and Milnesium elseri nov. sp. (Apachela, Milnesiidae). 

Authors: Chelsea Scheirer, William R. Miller, and Jeffrey D. Miller.

 

An interesting manuscript describing two new species for Montana, USA.  

From the description and data, it appears these are valid new species.  However, the authors should include the data for the Holotypes as well as the mean and range measurements.

Tables should have explanation for terms used.  The information is in the Methods section, but the tables would probably be published on different pages.

Some of the tables need to be checked for alignment.

Is there a reason for not putting species in alphabetic order within Table 6?

Figure 2; are the images in the right order?  The captions do not seem to fit.

The authors seem to be trying to make the recorded species fit a biogeography idea.  Is it possible some of the early identifications are questionable in the light of new data and further research might provide new insight into the actual species and biogeographic distribution?

Descriptions of the new Milnesium claws are confused.  Please could the authors review Camarda D, Pilato G, Lisi O (2022) and Suzuki AC (2022) for the current view of the Milnesium claws.

The references need to be checked for journal formatting and correct alphabetic listing.  I have not had time to check all the references but there are some missing.

There are additional notes and suggested edits in the attached file.

 

 

Camarda D, Pilato G, Lisi O (2022) Considerations on the claws of the Apochela and a novel detail of the bucco-pharyngeal apparatus of the genus Milnesium (Tardigarda: Apochela: Milnesiidae).

Eur Zool J 89: 256–277.

and

Suzuki AC (2022) Beautiful claws of a tiny water bear: a review and

proposal for claw configuration. Zool Sci 39: 167–175.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the PDF

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"There are a great many typos and careless errors in the names of species (e.g., referring to Platicrista boreensis as Platicrista bareness), authorities, dates, etc. I’ve indicated them in the marked manuscript, but I may have missed some. The manuscript definitely needs thorough proof reading.

I agree with the authors that many tools used for ‘integrative taxonomy’ in tardigrades (such as fluorescence, SEM, and DNA sequences) are not readily available to all researchers. I think descriptions of new species based on the morphology and morphometrics using light microscopy still have a legitimate place in tardigradology, so long as there are unique morphological features and/or morphometric differences are very pronounced. The description of Platicrista loloensis is convincing.

I have some concerns with Milnesium elseri, which is based on a unique combination of the pt means for buccal tube width and stylet support insertion. Mean is useful, but more attention should be paid to whether ranges overlap. Some of the 18 species referenced in Table 6 were based on very few specimens, in a few instances only one or two. Given that 22 specimens were measured, I like that a* is included in the results, but what should also have been calculated and indicated is whether any of traits measured are significantly allometric. This is especially relevant since the ranges for buccal tube width and SSI pt values are very wide. This is not uncommon for BTW. The BTW ranges for Mil. elseri overlap with only a few species.

Most of the 18 species of Milnesium used for comparison in Table 6 have narrow ranges of SSI pt. The widest ranges (14) are for Mil. pseudotardigradum and Mil. burgesi. The range presented for Mil. elseri is 18. That’s quite wide and overlaps with more than half the 18 species."

I think Mil. elseri is probably a legitimate new species, but I would like to see allometry addressed, and the differential diagnosis should take into account intraspecific variation in the ranges of the pt values used for diagnosis."

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There were a great many typos etc., as the manuscript does not appear to have been proofread by anyone before submission. That is annoying but not relevant to scientific validity.

 

Author Response

"There are a great many typos and careless errors in the names of species (e.g., referring to Platicrista boreensis as Platicrista bareness), authorities, dates, etc. I’ve indicated them in the marked manuscript, but I may have missed some. The manuscript definitely needs thorough proof reading.

I agree with the authors that many tools used for ‘integrative taxonomy’ in tardigrades (such as fluorescence, SEM, and DNA sequences) are not readily available to all researchers. I think descriptions of new species based on the morphology and morphometrics using light microscopy still have a legitimate place in tardigradology, so long as there are unique morphological features and/or morphometric differences are very pronounced. The description of Platicrista loloensis is convincing.

Thank you for the typo corrections, thank you for agreeing that ‘integrative taxonomy’ is  a fine tool to be encouraged and used to understand how the visible structures appear.

I have some concerns with Milnesium elseri, which is based on a unique combination of the pt means for buccal tube width and stylet support insertion. Mean is useful, but more attention should be paid to whether ranges overlap. Some of the 18 species referenced in Table 6 were based on very few specimens, in a few instances only one or two. Given that 22 specimens were measured, I like that a* is included in the results, but what should also have been calculated and indicated is whether any of traits measured are significantly allometric. This is especially relevant since the ranges for buccal tube width and SSI pt values are very wide. This is not uncommon for BTW. The BTW ranges for Mil. elseri overlap with only a few species.

The convention within the group is to sort a specimen by diagnostic properties, then further separate it by the relative pt values for the measured character for each species it is being compared to. It is general practice to differentiate between species based on the mean pt values that are greater or less than published values for that character among the other species being considered. Sometimes, claw lengths and other measurables are used. We have done that on lines 299 through 320.  We have also displayed the unique position of our pt values (ptBTW and ptSSA) combination as it so clearly provides difference (Figure 5).

Most of the 18 species of Milnesium used for comparison in Table 6 have narrow ranges of SSI pt. The widest ranges (14) are for Mil. pseudotardigradum and Mil. burgesi. The range presented for Mil. elseri is 18. That’s quite wide and overlaps with more than half the 18 species."

I agree, a study of the ranges of the pt values used to establish the mean. Yes, many species are named on very few specimens and many have very wide ranges of measured values molded into their means.  It is a great subject for a review paper.

I think Mil. elseri is probably a legitimate new species, but I would like to see allometry addressed, and the differential diagnosis should take into account intraspecific variation in the ranges of the pt values used for diagnosis."

a* is the Y intercept of an allometry judgment as to how close the data fit an ideal of regression line through the data. The easiest judgment is how close is the a* to the average for that variable. If close then we know the variable such as BTW or SAA are varying relative to buccal tub size (growth) or if further away we would not rely on that variable to be varying relative to buccal tub size (growth),

I will add a discussion of interspecific variation in range of pt values.

 Comments on the Quality of English Language

There were a great many typos etc., as the manuscript does not appear to have been proofread by anyone before submission. That is annoying but not relevant to scientific validity.

 Yes, I’m working on those.                                                        William Miller

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors of that manuscript examined species composition of Tardigrades from two samples, representing two different substratum/habitats (i.e., one moss and one lichen sample) collected in Montana, USA. They provided list of species for each sample/habitat, which included four new species for Montana, including two species new to science.

Data from only two samples are not representative for any conclusions on habitat preferences and diversity, and this should be clearly (more clearly) stated in the manuscript. In fact, list of species, even with addition of new records for the state of Montana, limited to only two samples is not really worth publication. However, description of new species to science provides valuable significant information, thus I do not have doubts that the authors work is worth of publication and relevant for Diversity journal.

Manuscript is generally well written, and new species descriptions are well prepared. However, some parts give the impression that the manuscript was somewhat hastily prepared and not checked thorough before its submission. The list of my detailed comment is given bellow. Though, they all concern mostly minor and easily to correct issues.

 

Abstract

Line 14:

“extracted from a moss (n= 104 specimens) sample and a lichen (n= 110 specimens) sample”

In scientific literature the small letter “n” is generally used for the samples size. In that particular case one moss samples (n=1) and one lichen sample (n=1) was collected, and a single tardigrade specimen cannot be considered as a sample. So, such use of the symbol “n” is confusing. In fact, after first skimming through the abstract I got an impression that 104 moss samples and 110 lichen samples were examined. Thus, the symbol “n” should be removed. The following would read better and be clearer.

“extracted from a moss sample (104 tardigrades) and a lichen sample (110 tardigrades)”

2. Study Area and Methods

Line 41:

“1-2oC”

It seems that authors for the degree symbol used small letter “o” given in Superscript. This should be replaced with the appropriate symbol of degrees. 

Line 45:

“(21-22oC”

See the comment above.

3. Results

Lines 84-85:

“among the two types of habitat”

Considering that only two samples were examined this is a kind of overstatement and might be misleading. I would strongly suggest to make clear that this concerns only two samples. For instance the following would be clearer.

“among the two samples representing two different types of habitat”

Lines 89-90:

 “because the number of samples is low”

Similarly to my previous comment I would strongly suggest more precise statement.

“because only two samples were examined, which is too fewer for any valid conclusins”

4. Taxonomic Treatment of New Species

Lines 101-102:

 “cannot be reasonably be explained”

Grammar correction needed.

Line 105: The Table 2 Caption.

The year 2024 in the Table caption is redundant.

Table 2:

(1) Formatting of the first two Table rows is needed.

(2) In case of the works Leetchu et al. 1980, 1982 three (3) is written as the “Total species” number, but the X* is marked by only one taxon (i.e., Hexapodibus sp.). Which other taxa/species were reported in that work? If this work reported three different species but determined to the genus level this should be clarified in the Table caption or a footnote. Otherwise this might be confusing.

(3) What is the difference in meaning between “X” and “X*”? The meaning of the star (*) given by some letter X (indicating species presence) have to be explained in the Table caption or a footnote.  

Line 113:

What is Etomology:of the species name of Platicrista loloensis nov. sp.? Traditionally this is usually explained within new species descriptions.

Line 145:

“(Number ######)”

Lines 149-150:

“(Number ######, ######, ######, ######, ######)”

Line 270:

“(Number ######)”

Lines 274-275:

“(Number ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######)”

Specimens collection numbers are missing, “#” symbols are given instead.

Figure 2:

I would suggest some editing of the figure. Firstly, the capital letters A-E that mark different (sub-)figures will look better if given directly on the picture, without being given in white square inserts. Make sure the letters are printed clearly, at present some of them have some parts missing. Similarly, with the small letters that mark particular characteristics; some of them are not completely visible, for instance the letter “p” on Figure A is significantly obscured. All these letter should also be given in similar print, at present letters on Figures A-C are white wheres letter on Figure D are black. It seems to me that letters printed in black are more distinct and easier to read. It would also be nice if the Figures were aligning better.

Table 3:

Each column should provide information on its content. Moreover, all abbreviations used in the Table should be explained in the Table caption or a footnote. For instance, provide information what does the fiesr and second column contain, also explain the meaning of “b” (column 6) and “a*” (column 7) and other abbreviations given in the Table.

Line 176:

“Marshall” is partly printed with red font.

Table 4:

The meaning of “N” (second row) should be explained.

Lines 179-180:

These two lines contain continuation of the text from paragraph given above Table 4, separating them from rest of the paragraph looks oddly and is confusing.

Figure 3 Caption:

“North American distribution of genus …”

The following would read better and I believe would be more correct.

“North American records of genus …”

Also correct the following.

“Lt.” –> “Light”

“Yellow dot” –> “Yellow dots”

Line 235:

“Pla.” –> “Platichrista”

When the genus name is given as the very first word of a sentence then it should not be abbreviated by given in full. The rest of text should be check for that and corrected accordingly.

Line 237:

“Pla.” –> “Platichrista”

See my comment above.

Line 240:

“Pla. loloensis nov. sp. ...” –> “Platichrista loloensis nov. sp. …”

See my comment above.

Lines 239-240:

 “of the species from Mongolia”

What does that mean? Was Pla. horribilis previously known only from Mongolia? If so this sentence should be rewritten to make that clear.

Lines 245-246:

“previous reported specimens” –> “previously reported specimens”

Line 270:

“(Number ######)”

Lines 274-275:

“(Number ######,######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######)”

Specimens collection numbers are missing, “#” symbols are given instead.

Line 277:

“Elser” is partly printed with red font.

Figure 4:

Similarly as in the case of Figure 2, I would suggest some editing of the figure. In this particular case, the capital letters A-E that mark different (sub-)figures will look better if given directly on the picture, without being given in white square inserts. Make sure the letters are printed clearly, e.g. in bold font.

Table 5 &6.

See my comments regarding other Table. In particular, explanation of all abbreviations and symbols used in the Table is needed.

Line 294:

“that” is printed with red font.

Line 299:

“configuratio” and “cuticle” are partly printed with red font.

Figure 4:

What is the difference in meaning between blue and read circles? This should be explained in the Figure Caption. Moreover, I would format the values given by both axes to the whole numbers, providing decimal number is meaningless. The title given in the upper part of the figure is also completely redundant; it only repeats what is already given in the Figure Caption. Without it the Figure will look much better.

Line 333:

“wide scale sampling of tardigrade habitat has not been conducted” –> “wide scale sampling of tardigrades has not been conducted”

Tardigrades do not really appear in any specific habitat, but occupy wide range of habitats. Moreover, I am pretty sure many tardigrade habitats were sampled, just not for tardigrades; so there is clearly lack of tardigrade sampling but not necessary lack of tardigrade habitat sampling.

Lines 342-343:

 “… great expanses of real estate have no records. There is even less data concerning …”

If real estate have no records that means the number of record from that habitat is zero (0). Thus, the following sentence implies that there is negative number of records from the habitats referred in that sentence. This would obviously be absurd. So, this has to be rephrased.

References

Lines 373-375:

There is some blue formatting left with the numbers of references nos 5 and 6.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author Response

Authors of that manuscript examined species composition of Tardigrades from two samples, representing two different substratum/habitats (i.e., one moss and one lichen sample) collected in Montana, USA. They provided list of species for each sample/habitat, which included four new species for Montana, including two species new to science. 

Yes

Data from only two samples are not representative for any conclusions on habitat preferences and diversity, and this should be clearly (more clearly) stated in the manuscript. In fact, list of species, even with addition of new records for the state of Montana, limited to only two samples is not really worth publication. However, description of new species to science provides valuable significant information, thus I do not have doubts that the authors work is worth of publication and relevant for Diversity journal.

Manuscript is generally well written, and new species descriptions are well prepared. However, some parts give the impression that the manuscript was somewhat hastily prepared and not checked thorough before its submission. The list of my detailed comment is given bellow. Though, they all concern mostly minor and easily to correct issues.

Yes, we are working on these

 

Abstract

Line 14:

“extracted from a moss (n= 104 specimens) sample and a lichen (n= 110 specimens) sample”

In scientific literature the small letter “n” is generally used for the samples size. In that particular case one moss samples (n=1) and one lichen sample (n=1) was collected, and a single tardigrade specimen cannot be considered as a sample. So, such use of the symbol “n” is confusing. In fact, after first skimming through the abstract I got an impression that 104 moss samples and 110 lichen samples were examined. Thus, the symbol “n” should be removed. The following would read better and be clearer.

“extracted from a moss sample (104 tardigrades) and a lichen sample (110 tardigrades)”

Corrected  in manuscript

2. Study Area and Methods

Line 41:

“1-2oC”

It seems that authors for the degree symbol used small letter “o” given in Superscript. This should be replaced with the appropriate symbol of degrees. 

Line 45:

“(21-22oC”

See the comment above.

3. Results

Lines 84-85:

“among the two types of habitat”

Considering that only two samples were examined this is a kind of overstatement and might be misleading. I would strongly suggest to make clear that this concerns only two samples. For instance the following would be clearer.

“among the two samples representing two different types of habitat”

Lines 89-90:

 “because the number of samples is low”

Similarly to my previous comment I would strongly suggest more precise statement.

“because only two samples were examined, which is too fewer for any valid conclusins”

4. Taxonomic Treatment of New Species

Lines 101-102:

 “cannot be reasonably be explained”

Grammar correction needed.

Line 105: The Table 2 Caption.

The year 2024 in the Table caption is redundant.

Table 2:

(1) Formatting of the first two Table rows is needed.

(2) In case of the works Leetchu et al. 1980, 1982 three (3) is written as the “Total species” number, but the X* is marked by only one taxon (i.e., Hexapodibus sp.). Which other taxa/species were reported in that work? If this work reported three different species but determined to the genus level this should be clarified in the Table caption or a footnote. Otherwise this might be confusing.

This is always a problem, if a genus is reported first, then a species if found in a different study, we do not know if the species found is the same as the one reported as just a genus earlier. I tend to think the second finding also records the genus. And the empty genus record should not be counted as a different species.

(3) What is the difference in meaning between “X” and “X*”? The meaning of the star (*) given by some letter X (indicating species presence) have to be explained in the Table caption or a footnote.  

The “*” was intended to denote first record, but the presence of the record does that. Did not get all of the “*” deleted.

Line 113:

What is Etomology:of the species name of Platicrista loloensis nov. sp.? Traditionally this is usually explained within new species descriptions.

Etymology is the source of a word or name and is spelled wrong.

Line 145:

“(Number ######)”

Lines 149-150:

“(Number ######, ######, ######, ######, ######)”

Line 270:

“(Number ######)”

Lines 274-275:

“(Number ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######)”

Specimens collection numbers are missing, “#” symbols are given instead.

Yes, I retain the specimens till I am sure I do not have to measure additional features or need to verify observations so I prepare the specimens for deposit at the museum after the first review, a and will insert the Museum Numbers in the final copy.

Figure 2:

I would suggest some editing of the figure. Firstly, the capital letters A-E that mark different (sub-)figures will look better if given directly on the picture, without being given in white square inserts. Make sure the letters are printed clearly, at present some of them have some parts missing. Similarly, with the small letters that mark particular characteristics; some of them are not completely visible, for instance the letter “p” on Figure A is significantly obscured. All these letter should also be given in similar print, at present letters on Figures A-C are white wheres letter on Figure D are black. It seems to me that letters printed in black are more distinct and easier to read. It would also be nice if the Figures were aligning better.

Yes, I think I have better aligned and color matched the characters.

Table 3:

Each column should provide information on its content. Moreover, all abbreviations used in the Table should be explained in the Table caption or a footnote. For instance, provide information what does the fiesr and second column contain, also explain the meaning of “b” (column 6) and “a*” (column 7) and other abbreviations given in the Table.

Fixed

Line 176:

“Marshall” is partly printed with red font.

I have no idea where these random red letters appear in the manuscript, I do not use red to mark anything, thank you for finding them, they should all be black now.

Table 4:

The meaning of “N” (second row) should be explained.

Replaced with “Specimens used in description”

Lines 179-180:

These two lines contain continuation of the text from paragraph given above Table 4, separating them from rest of the paragraph looks oddly and is confusing.

Figure 3 Caption:

“North American distribution of genus …”

The following would read better and I believe would be more correct.

“North American records of genus …”

Also correct the following.

“Lt.” –> “Light”

“Yellow dot” –> “Yellow dots”

Fixed

Line 235:

“Pla.” –> “Platichrista”

When the genus name is given as the very first word of a sentence then it should not be abbreviated by given in full. The rest of text should be check for that and corrected accordingly.

Yes,

Line 237:

“Pla.” –> “Platichrista”

See my comment above.

Line 240:

“Pla. loloensis nov. sp. ...” –> “Platichrista loloensis nov. sp. …”

See my comment above.

Lines 239-240:

 “of the species from Mongolia”

What does that mean? Was Pla. horribilis previously known only from Mongolia? If so this sentence should be rewritten to make that clear.

Yes,

Lines 245-246:

“previous reported specimens” –> “previously reported specimens”

Line 270:

“(Number ######)”

Lines 274-275:

“(Number ######,######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######, ######)”

Specimens collection numbers are missing, “#” symbols are given instead.

Same as above

Line 277:

“Elser” is partly printed with red font.

Same issue

Figure 4:

Similarly as in the case of Figure 2, I would suggest some editing of the figure. In this particular case, the capital letters A-E that mark different (sub-)figures will look better if given directly on the picture, without being given in white square inserts. Make sure the letters are printed clearly, e.g. in bold font.

Table 5 &6.

See my comments regarding other Table. In particular, explanation of all abbreviations and symbols used in the Table is needed.

Yes

 

Line 294:

“that” is printed with red font.

Same

 

Line 299:

“configuratio” and “cuticle” are partly printed with red font.          

Same

 

Figure 4:

What is the difference in meaning between blue and read circles? This should be explained in the Figure Caption. Moreover, I would format the values given by both axes to the whole numbers, providing decimal number is meaningless. The title given in the upper part of the figure is also completely redundant; it only repeats what is already given in the Figure Caption. Without it the Figure will look much better.

 

Line 333:

“wide scale sampling of tardigrade habitat has not been conducted” –> “wide scale sampling of tardigrades has not been conducted”

Tardigrades do not really appear in any specific habitat, but occupy wide range of habitats. Moreover, I am pretty sure many tardigrade habitats were sampled, just not for tardigrades; so there is clearly lack of tardigrade sampling but not necessary lack of tardigrade habitat sampling.

OK

Lines 342-343:

 “… great expanses of real estate have no records. There is even less data concerning …”

If real estate have no records that means the number of record from that habitat is zero (0). Thus, the following sentence implies that there is negative number of records from the habitats referred in that sentence. This would obviously be absurd. So, this has to be rephrased.

Yes

References

Lines 373-375:

There is some blue formatting left with the numbers of references nos 5 and 6.

 

William Miller

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for partially correcting the errors in your manuscript. However, the manuscript is not yet in a state to be published. Please pay attention to the following lines and notes, which I entered directly into the manuscript.

In the abstract you write that Milnesium elseri nov. sp. is distinguished from other members of the genus by the unique combination of buccal tube width and stylet support attachment point and primary claw lengths. I'm afraid your claim is not valid. In the attached table I demonstrate that the measurements you consider overlapping in Milnesium elseri, M. asiaticum, M. longiungue and also M. quiranae. This means that on the basis of the characters you have chosen in the differential diagnosis, it is practically impossible to distinguish individuals from your series from individuals of the three species mentioned. Therefore, I do not consider the description of this species to be sufficient and I propose to omit it from the manuscript.

Species	ptBTW	ptSSA	ptPri-I	ptPri-IV	source
M. elseri	41.9 - 63.4	53.7-71.1	38.5-70.3	57.8-95.1	this MS
M. asiaticum	30.0-41.6	63.9-66.9	39.7-54.0	63.9-76.0	Tumanov 2006
M. longiungue	33.8-59.1	59.1-66.7	47.5-58.4	81.8-92.4	Tumanov 2006
M. quiranae	59.1-67.9	67.5-73.6	45.6-54.9	56.4-65.6	Rocha et al. 2022

 My reservations also concern Tables 3 and 4, in which there are markedly erroneous data. Species and families are incorrectly counted in the text. A number of other minor errors are marked directly in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We have considered all of your input, suggestions, and ideas.

Thank you for the great effort to help us produce a worthy paper and as a result we are removing the Milnesium new species from this manuscript. 

We will address what we still thing is a different species in a different avenue.

Thank you

William Miller

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors adequately addressed my substantive concerns, particularly with respect to the new Milnesium species. I consider it valid.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still typos etc. I've noted several in the marked manuscript but there may be more.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

We agree that the Milnesium is a valid new species. We have been trying to satisfy those objections and have decided to withdraw the description from this paper. We will give into another reviewer and the editor and change the paper. We will take another more carefully crafted set of arguments and craft another paper.

Thank you for your time, observation, ideas, and opinions.

 William Miller

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for considering all of my input, suggestions and ideas as well as for omitting the problematic description of a new species of the genus Milnesium from the manuscript.

All that remains is to correct the things that I marked in the attached MS Word version of the manuscript that I requested from the Diversity Editor, since in the pdf version with marked changes my notes would disappear and you would easily miss them. These are mostly small things, but there are also several significant errors, such as incorrect data in Tables 3 and 4, as well as incorrectly calculated numbers of taxa in the text and Table 1.

I recommend that you complete the manuscript by editing your own version instead of the attached file, which was slightly modified during my work on it.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

please see the attachmenrt

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf